[DEFEATED] Protecting Free, Open Source Software Use

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

OOC: Well, the proposal got defeated. Fortunately, bringing it to vote brought out a lot of feedback that I plan to utilize to redraft and eventually resubmit.

Title: Protecting Free, Open Source Software Use
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Signifigant


The World Assembly,

Defining Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) as software which is both:

1. Free of cost and largely free of restrictions in regards to anything performed on, for, or with the software (such as its usage, modification, and distribution), including both:
   
   1. commercial (i.e. for profit), purposes, and
   2. purposes which may be illegal in other jurisdictions, with the exception of those illegal under international law, and
2. Open source, or its programming is available in its entirety and easily accessible to/for all members of the public without restriction, except in regards to regulations on the editing of the master copy of the software to ensure its quality,

Recognizing that many integral components of everyday life, including, but not limited to, digital stores of information and various forms of telecommunications, are at least partially dependent on FOSS,

Acknowledging that without FOSS, many of the above constituents of modern life may never have come about,

Concerned that such an acknowledgment does not go nearly far enough to encourage and repay developers and other supporters of FOSS, protect their ability to freely contribute to FOSS, or protect the ability of others to use and otherwise perform actions with/to FOSS,

Hereby:

1. Requires that all member nations:
   
   1. recognize and protect the right of individuals and entities to, for any legal purpose:
      
      1. access any and all FOSS,
      2. run FOSS as they wish, on computer systems where they are legally entitled to,
      3. study and modify FOSS,
      4. distribute original and modified copies of FOSS, and
   2. establish a legal framework in which the owners and/or developers of FOSS can exercise limited rights granted by copyright law over their software to ensure the software and its derivatives remain free and open source to the maximum possible extent, and
2. Strongly Recommends that all member nations criminalize the act of intentionally acting against legal activities involving FOSS, including any listed above.

[Untecna]

Clause B in the definition section is essentially redundant if you aren't going to use the definition of open-source, and clashes with Clause A in "human readibility".
Clause A in the same section leaves out other lifeforms in WA nations, and instead solely refer to nonhuman entities as "charities or corporations".

[Tinhampton]

What is the point of this proposal? You do not explicitly allow individuals to develop FOSS here, and appear to require member states to do little more than promote FOSS to their citizens and incentivise developers of FOSS.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Is this really an international issue though? Is it really the work of governments to promote open source and preach of its greatness to the masses? Should tbe govenment really shove products down people's throats?

[Imperium Anglorum]

On Free and Open Source Software

https://imperiumanglorum.wordpress.com/ ... g-with-on/

---

Use list tags rather than blocktext. Blocktext doesn't work in the proposal screen. Remember to provide a parameter à la [list=1] to get Arabic numbering.

[Araraukar]

OOC: "The Internet" (with capital letter) is the actual proper name of the RL internet and thus Real World Reference, aka an illegality.

There is no requirement for member nations to have an international network (which might be difficult if a single nation covers an entire planet or solar system), so what exactly is the international utility of this?

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

OOC: "The Internet" (with capital letter) is the actual proper name of the RL internet and thus Real World Reference, aka an illegality.

There is no requirement for member nations to have an international network (which might be difficult if a single nation covers an entire planet or solar system), so what exactly is the international utility of this?

You are right... perhaps I should just let this proposal die... unless any of you have suggestions that I can use to salvage this, and turn it into something of international utility.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Draft #2 is up now. It has been a while, but I am back! Thank you all for your feedback thus far, and keep it coming, everybody!

[Imperium Anglorum]

Provide an explanation as to what Foss means. You use this acronym without defining it.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Provide an explanation as to what Foss means. You use this acronym without defining it.

I already defined the acronym in the first paragraph of the resolution:

...are at least partially dependent on free and open source software, herein refereed to as FOSS,

But in case you meant in the paragraph in the OP detailing the changes, I took care of it. However, did you also/instead mean the title of the resolution? I originally wanted the title to be "Free and Open Source Software Contributor Bill of Rights", but it seems too long, so I used the abbreviated form.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Bump.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

24-Hour Bump.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

26-Hour Bump.

[Tinhampton]

Are you going to be doing a 29.3875-Hour Bump next and how does STRONGLY RECOMMENDS 3 pass GA#17's tax scrutiny test?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Write out the acronym in the definition, not in the preamble. Not everyone reads the preamble all that closely.

Also, my tablet's proofreader is convinced you're typoing fossa.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Are you going to be doing a 29.3875-Hour Bump next

Hey, whatever it takes to try to get feedback sooner (and remind everybody I am still here, working on this proposal)!

and how does STRONGLY RECOMMENDS 3 pass GA#17's tax scrutiny test?

I don't think it does, so I will remove it. Good call!

OOC: Write out the acronym in the definition, not in the preamble. Not everyone reads the preamble all that closely.

I will spell it out in the definition. However, I was somewhat concerned about people not understanding what it means in the preamble, so I initially spelled out the acronym there. If anybody sees any issues in that regard, I will change it back or spell it out in both places.

Also, my tablet's proofreader is convinced you're typoing fossa.

Crappy Spellchecking: How else are computers supposed to enslave us?

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Bump.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Bump.

[Frisbeeteria]

Bump.

Don't do that. If nobody has any comments, bumps don't do anything but annoy.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Don't do that. If nobody has any comments, bumps don't do anything but annoy.

On that note, if nobody has any other feedback to give, I will be submitting this soon.

Also, Fris, I almost had a heart attack when I saw you were the most recent poster! I expected something a lot worse.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

This proposal has been submitted. Could all delegates reading this please approve of the proposal? Thank you.

[Tinhampton]

Pre-emptively approved

Campaign telegrams exist.

[Jedinsto]

Unconvinced this is necessary

[Bananaistan]

"The people of Bananaistan wholeheartedly support this proposal and rejoice at the blow this strikes at hyper-individualist, exploitative global capitalism."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Exactly how is a "right to program" a civil right? This reads more like "right to profit from one's work" which sounds more like pro-trade (free trade). Exactly what civil rights does this advance significantly?

And does definition (1.b.) mean that the proposal tries to ban prevention of "digital terrorism", that is, you are not allowed to stop people from writing and distributing password crackers, computer viruses and bot programs as long as they use some open source program to create them?

Alternatively the requirement is only for developing the open source code itself, not doing anything with it, which narrows the effect down so far that I seriously question the strength of the proposal.

And doesn't recommendation #2 self-contradict the definition of FOSS? Copyrighted things are NOT free of costs and freely accessible and such, so the moment a developer of the code invokes their copyrights, their code no longer counts as FOSS.